Do people take this scripture literally?:
"But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs from the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:11-12) The Scholar's Version has: "There are castrated men who castrated themselves because of Heaven's imperial rule. If you are able to accept this (advice), do so."
Or is this another case of Pick'N'Mixism where you only follow the bits you like and take the rest to be "metaphors"?
2007-10-25 22:02:16 · 5 answers · asked by Cotton Wool Ninja 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Interesting silence from the christians out there.
2007-10-25 22:20:44 · update #1
The Bible also says to cut off any part of your body that has caused you to sin, but I wager there are plenty of penis-having adulterer Christians around.
2007-10-25 22:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
The Bible was finished almost 2000 yrs. ago so I'd guess at that time there were many who were for the various reasons listed. But nowhere in the Bible is it a requirement of heaven.
Simply because a scholar's version said it's heaven's imperial rule doesn't mean it is or even that the Bible said it is. It's only one man's interpretation. Sticking a title on someone doesn't make their opinion legit. Sounds more like some supposed scholar from a cult of some kind.
You can't take a scripture out of context just to prove a bias. If you look at the scriptures you see surrounding it Jesus is talking about the 12 tribes of Israel & their judges. In the end times there will be 144,000 virgins that are witnessing. It doesn't give the particulars of why they are virgins. Thus I'm lead to presume their condition is part of their calling. So it could be they are eunuchs for various reasons but all because of that calling.
In reality there is no pick & mixism only those who don't understand and/or know the Bible well enough to explain what seems like a contradiction.
Btw pork chops nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was a eunuch. He was a man & tempted like we all are. If He was a eunuch how could he be tempted sexually? Last I heard if you were born like that you could choose which sex you wanted to be. God told Mary it was a son & all the prophecies pointing to Him referred to Him as a male. Plus He wouldn't be circumcized on the 8th day if He was a eunuch unless the knife slipped. If it had I'm sure it would've been important enough to mention. lol!
2007-10-25 22:34:32 · answer #2 · answered by syllylou77 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The original Greek said for the last part "kept themselves eunuchs for the reign of Heaven", whereas your original is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean that they castrated themselves when it actually means that they refrained from sex.
The further you get from the original source, the more 'spin' and 'misinterpretation' has been applied as witness the so called "Scholars" version. and the more futile become arguments based on them.
So the verse should actually be taken literally. It was merely explaining that there were three types/causes of eunuchs.
2007-10-26 01:33:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not enogh.... a castrated christian would keep their mouth shut!
2007-10-26 01:59:15 · answer #4 · answered by Adam (AM) 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You peaked my interest,I'll have to look that up when I get home.
2007-10-25 22:09:09 · answer #5 · answered by boobooloo 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋